On Jan 19, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Ian Holsman had...@holsman.net wrote:
I think Roy's suggestion of applying the commits individually to the branch
from your current working branch would help with this.
I am sure this is not what
On 1/14/11 11:24 AM, Dhruba Borthakur dhr...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I agree this is not a good precedent. We don't support mega-patches
in
general. We are doing this as part of discontinuing the yahoo
distribution
of Hadoop. We don't plan to continue doing 30 person year projects
outside
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Ian Holsman had...@holsman.net wrote:
I think Roy's suggestion of applying the commits individually to the branch
from your current working branch would help with this.
I am sure this is not what Roy suggested. Ian. I think the idea is simple.
If you decide
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Hi Ian,
Thanks for holding off on that last .5. I've been working in a big email giving
move context on this. Let me preview some issues.
Our goal with this branch is two fold: 1) get the code out in a branch quickly
so we
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 01/12/2011 11:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
Thus, I think a jumbo patch should suffice. It will also ensure this can
done quickly so that the community can then concentrate on 0.22 and beyond.
However, I will (manually) ensure all relevant
Hi Folks,
We are very interested in sharing what we are doing with the community. I
think we can separate this into multiple stages.
1) To doug's point - Yes, absolutely, we want folks to review this. The patch
is now available. Lets work together to get it formatted as folks like in
Hi Stack,
I feel your pain. We're running a 700 node HBASE cluster containing a HUGE
collections of all web pages. Both versions of append were started by
engineers working at yahoo and we've put A LOT of investment into both. I
really, really want to see the append issue solved for HBASE!!
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
We would not release this until each change in it has been reviewed by the
community, right? Otherwise we may end up with changes in a 0.20 release
that don't get approved when they're contributed to trunk and cause trunk
@hadoop.apache.orgmailto:general@hadoop.apache.org
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:49:51 -0800
To: general@hadoop.apache.orgmailto:general@hadoop.apache.org
general@hadoop.apache.orgmailto:general@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Backwards compatibility has been a goal, so
Release off Yahoo! patchset
Backwards compatibility has been a goal, so
with luck we will not ID regressions.
My point was that, in addition to back-compatibility with prior 0.20
releases, we must also consider the forward-compatibility of each change
with 0.21, 0.22 and trunk.
Apache Hadoop hasn't had a stable, updated release in a while.
That's what 0.22 is for?
However, it does remedy the critical problem - a stable, updated Apache
Hadoop release.
Again, isn't that what 0.22 is for?
An appeal: Let's use a bit of common sense and get the project moving
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher ham...@cloudera.com wrote:
We had this exact same discussion about the 0.20-append branch a few weeks
ago. A few organizations have tested that code at scale and feel strongly
that it's stable. We decided not to release it because it does not
To: general@hadoop.apache.orgmailto:general@hadoop.apache.org
general@hadoop.apache.orgmailto:general@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Hadoop Security Release off Yahoo! patchset
Backwards compatibility has been a goal, so
with luck we will not ID regressions.
My point
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jeff Hammerbacher wrote:
Apache Hadoop hasn't had a stable, updated release in a while.
That's what 0.22 is for?
Every single Hadoop release in the recent past, and I have worked on
pretty much every single Hadoop release since forever, has taken at
least
(with my Apache hat on)
I'm -0.5 on doing this as one big mega-patch and not including append (as
opposed to a series of smaller patches).
for the following reasons:
1. It encourages bad behavior. We want discussion (and development) to happen
on the lists, not in some office. By allowing
Yup, I'll say it again. The process ain't perfect but it's good enough IMO.
Thank you Yahoo! for your contribution.
Clearly these patch will need review before commit when going into trunk.
Let's move on to 0.22.
Nige
On Jan 14, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
I tend to second
On another thread discussing hadoop-0.20-append as a separate branch, most
people agreed that new features shouldn't be added to 0.20, now we have a
major feature and we are all gung ho for it..
Not all are. I'm against it for the all the same reasons I was
against 20 append. This is also
Hi Ian,
Thanks for holding off on that last .5. I've been working in a big email giving
move context on this. Let me preview some issues.
Our goal with this branch is two fold: 1) get the code out in a branch quickly
so we an collaborate on it with the community. 2) not change the character
1) I agree this is not a good precedent. We don't support mega-patches in
general. We are doing this as part of discontinuing the yahoo distribution
of Hadoop. We don't plan to continue doing 30 person year projects outside
apache and then merging them in!!
I think this is a very
Dhruba,
While I do not think that the releasability of a branch should be determined by
the market-cap (either on nasdaq or second-market) of the contributing company,
I think a well-tested release is beneficial to the community.
So, I support two releases: 20.100 now, that has security. And
Hi Arun, all,
When we merged YDH and CDH for CDH3b3, we went through the effort of
linearizing all of the YDH patches and squashing multiple commits into
single ones corresponding to a single JIRA where possible. So, we have a
100% linear set of patches that applies on top of the 0.20.2 source
Todd,
On Jan 13, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
Hi Arun, all,
When we merged YDH and CDH for CDH3b3, we went through the effort of
linearizing all of the YDH patches and squashing multiple commits
into
single ones corresponding to a single JIRA where possible. So, we
have a
100%
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Since this could be applied as a linear set of patches instead of a big
lump, would there be interest in using this as the 0.20.100 Apache
release?
I can take the time to remove any patches that are cloudera specific or
On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Todd Lipcon wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
Since this could be applied as a linear set of patches instead of a
big
lump, would there be interest in using this as the 0.20.100 Apache
release?
I can take the time
On Jan 13, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Given that Todd has already done the work to rebase the 0.20.104.3
patch set on 0.20.2, and in a way that doesn't require one big change,
and his patch set includes branch20-append which the HBase guys want
an Apache release of wouldn't it make
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Jan 13, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
Given that Todd has already done the work to rebase the 0.20.104.3
patch set on 0.20.2, and in a way that doesn't require one big change,
and his patch set includes
Below are copied from http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html. Not sure if it
helps.
What power does the RM yield?
Regarding what makes it into a release, the RM is the unquestioned authority.
No
one can contest what makes it into the release. The community will judge the
release's quality
Hi Eli,
Thanks for the suggestion.
+1 to nigel and arun's proposal.
I completely support the idea of creating a version of 20 with append for
HBASE. However, the append issue is very complicated and there does not exist
any version of append that is certified against a workload as diverse as
I say just do it. Eli said it wasn't a blocker. Sure it ain't perfect, but
it's good enough.
Let's move on to 0.22 and beyond.
Nige
On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
The cdh3 patch set Todd is talking about is not vanilla
*nod* Ok.
Arun
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Nigel Daley nda...@mac.com wrote:
I say just do it. Eli said it wasn't a blocker. Sure it ain't perfect, but
it's good enough.
Let's move on to 0.22 and beyond.
Nige
On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Jan 13, 2011,
Sorry for rattling you guys, definitely wasn't discussing a veto. I'm
absolutely not opposed, just thought the alternative Todd raised was
worth a couple emails since users have requested both security and
append, and such a branch that includes both of those plus
enhancements and substantial
No worries. Thanks to both Eli Todd for the discussion.
I look forward to getting this done and moving ahead to 0.22 and beyond.
thanks,
Arun
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Eli Collins e...@cloudera.com wrote:
Sorry for rattling you guys, definitely wasn't discussing a veto. I'm
absolutely
You're gonna call your kid 20.100?
:)
Congratz
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Arun C Murthy ar...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
I'm back now and plan to start work on this. Hopefully I can get this
over
with quickly, in a couple of
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
I'm open to suggestions - how about something like 20.100 to show
that it's a big jump? Anything else?
Although I'm not wild about any of the potential release names, this
patch set is neither a subset or superset of the 0.21 or 0.22
so if 0.20 becomes 1.0, what does 0.22 become ?
I'm still not sure if we shouldn't just add security to 0.22, and leave the
0.20 in maintenance mode from here on.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
I'm open to suggestions -
I'm willing to discuss any and all options, for a very short period.
Technically you have a reasonable point, Doug has suggested this in
the past too. If everyone agrees, fine; if not, I'm do not want hung
up on a release number. I just *do not* want a controversy.
As I mentioned, I'm
Let me second arun here.
This is incremental work on 0.20. We're happy to support any branch naming
strategy the community likes, but sticking with 20.minor seems like the right
default approach.
Let's discuss 1.0 issues on another thread. Our priority is to get our work
into other folks
+1 on 0.20.x (where x is a J 3)
Nigel - could we make all the patches in this branch that have not
been committed up stream (that need to be) blockers for 22? This way
22 is not a regression against 0.20.x.
Thanks,
Eli
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley nda...@mac.com wrote:
+1
On Jan 12, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
+1 for 0.20.x, where x = 100. I agree that the 1.0 moniker would
involve more discussion.
Ok, seems like we are converging; we can continue talking. I've
created the branch to get the ball rolling.
Will this be a jumbo patch attached to a
On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Jan 12, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley wrote:
+1 for 0.20.x, where x = 100. I agree that the 1.0 moniker would involve
more discussion.
Ok, seems like we are converging; we can continue talking. I've created the
branch to get the
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Things stalled, my apologies. Turns out having a kid is a lot of work, who
knew! *smile*
Really (smile -- congrats Arun).
I'm back now and plan to start work on this. Hopefully I can get this over
with quickly, in a
On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote:
In the interim I'd like to propose we push a hadoop-0.20-security
release off the Yahoo! patchset (http://github.com/yahoo/hadoop-
common). This will ensure the community benefits from all the work
done at Yahoo! for over 12 months *now*, and
On 25/08/10 18:59, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Hemanth Yamijala wrote:
Arun,
How much time do you think it would take to have a version of 0.20
with the security features in it ready ? In a different thread, Owen
has started discussing plans around 0.22. Do you think
On Aug 26, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
On 25/08/10 18:59, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Hemanth Yamijala wrote:
Arun,
How much time do you think it would take to have a version of 0.20
with the security features in it ready ? In a different thread, Owen
has
On 26/08/10 17:09, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
On 25/08/10 18:59, Arun C Murthy wrote:
On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Hemanth Yamijala wrote:
Arun,
How much time do you think it would take to have a version of 0.20
with the security features in
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
In the interim I'd like to propose we push a hadoop-0.20-security release
off the Yahoo! patchset (http://github.com/yahoo/hadoop-common). This will
ensure the community benefits from all the work done at Yahoo! for over
On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
In the interim I'd like to propose we push a hadoop-0.20-security
release
off the Yahoo! patchset (http://github.com/yahoo/hadoop-common).
This will
ensure the community
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Stack st...@duboce.net wrote:
Sounds good to me. What will this release be called? hadoop-0.20.3-security?
It is a new branch, so the question is what is the branch name. I'd
propose calling it 0.20-security and the releases would be
0.20-security.0, etc.
This would imply hadoop-0.20-security-append or hadoop-0.20-append-security
release be created which contains security and append features.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Arun C Murthy a...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Stack wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:27 PM,
On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
This would imply hadoop-0.20-security-append or hadoop-0.20-append-
security
release be created which contains security and append features.
As I mentioned in my initial proposal - it's conceivable, not imminent.
The community might decide that it
Arun,
How much time do you think it would take to have a version of 0.20
with the security features in it ready ? In a different thread, Owen
has started discussing plans around 0.22. Do you think this effort
would affect 0.22 release ?
I do agree that this would be very useful for folks who
On Aug 25, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Hemanth Yamijala wrote:
I do agree that this would be very useful for folks who want security
sooner. And the fact that Yahoo! have been running it at scale for a
good while now is also assuring.
As has been mentioned a few times, part of the security features
As has been mentioned a few times, part of the security features are dependent
upon Yahoo!-type operations.
Allen, could you please enlist them here again (for the benefit of the
community)? Or, are you referring to only the cluster-wide start scripts?
On 8/25/10 1:25 PM, Allen Wittenauer
53 matches
Mail list logo
